Swipe File: Fallen Angel And Ruby Rocket

[ShadowMax]

Ok, I read the piece and understand what you are trying to say. But the article itself says that Marvel never admitted to any wrongdoing, was never found guilty of anything and the lawyers tried to prove their claim very indirectly anyway.
In the end they didn't have a case and Marvel settled with them out of court because they didn't want this kind of publicity most probably. Happens all the time with lawyers who try to prove an old lady got burned by eating hot McDonalds french fries...

The fact remains that you would have a very hard time convincing the court of copyright infringement even when the photo is copied exactly as it is on another piece of art (Guice case), much less in the IDW cover case.

[Joe B. Pangrazio]

Ok, I read the piece and understand what you are trying to say. But the article itself says that Marvel never admitted to any wrongdoing, was never found guilty of anything and the lawyers tried to prove their claim very indirectly anyway.
In the end they didn't have a case and Marvel settled with them out of court because they didn't want this kind of publicity most probably. Happens all the time with lawyers who try to prove an old lady got burned by eating hot McDonalds french fries...

You're wrong about that, by the way.

So, your original complaint was (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that there was nothing dubious about this and anyone trying to sue/complain would get laughed out of court.

You then say that because a similar case was credible enough to go to trial (or likely enough) that Marvel settled with the provision that they get to say they did nothing wrong (which is also very common in settlement cases were wrong doing was committed) somehow reinforces your complaint that nothing is amiss and the case would get laughed (ie, thrown) out of court.

And you do not realize the inherent contradiction?

[ShadowMax]

You're wrong about that, by the way.

So, your original complaint was (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that there was nothing dubious about this and anyone trying to sue/complain would get laughed out of court.

You then say that because a similar case was credible enough to go to trial (or likely enough) that Marvel settled with the provision that they get to say they did nothing wrong (which is also very common in settlement cases were wrong doing was committed) somehow reinforces your complaint that nothing is amiss and the case would get laughed (ie, thrown) out of court.

And you do not realize the inherent contradiction?

Yes, what I am saying is that just because lawyers would try to prove any claim in a court of law, no matter how far-fetched, doesn't prove there is actually copyright infringement in the case we were discussing.

You still haven't proven that this practice is illegal or has ever been found so in a court of law, exactly as I originally claimed. Am I wrong?

[Cpt. Juan Langosta]

OK, so after all that, how is it that this artist and/or publisher aren't being chased by the same pitchfork mob as Rob G? Cuz I'm still a-wunderin' . . .

[ShadowMax]

OK, so after all that, how is it that this artist and/or publisher aren't being chased by the same pitchfork mob as Rob G? Cuz I'm still a-wunderin' . . .

Rob G is swiping other people's art. This guy is using photo reference (although admittedly very tightly) to draw his own work. Very simple.

[Cpt. Juan Langosta]

Rob G is swiping other people's art. This guy is using photo reference (although admittedly very tightly) to draw his own work. Very simple.

Not quite.

Based on your posts, your argument deals with the rule of law: that hijacking someone's photographic art work and either lightboxing it or using it as a 'very tight' reference is not illegal. Ho-kay, sure.

But from what I've seen, the majority of comics folk -- especially those who cut their teeth on superhero books -- tend to follow a fine moral compass, which, by the reckonings of Right vs. Wrong or Good vs. Bad or just plain professional decency, would make this practice unsavory if not borderline reprehensible. Because, if all that mattered was the Rule of Law, who'd bother being outraged at the screwings-over of Siegel & Shuster, Jack Kirby, Alan Moore, and so on. They signed contracts, right? So fuck 'em. Right?

But getting back to this: There is a smelly lack of ethics and fair play when shoplifting another artist's work, finagling it, and passing it off as one's own. Which is, more or less, what Rob has been doing, though on a grander scale.

If an artist wants to trace -- or very tightly reference --- a photo and pass it off as his own art, he should damn well take the trouble to shoot the picture himself. It's not like camera phones are hard to come by.

Don't be lazy and don't be a prick. It don't get no simpler that that.

[ShadowMax]

Look, I never said that this is ok simply because of the letter of the law. Someone else started talking about this being illegal and I replied. If you see my initial post I am saying that I don't find anything wrong with using photo reference in general. I still believe that there is a huge distinction between that and swiping art, you don't see that, fine. We will agree to disagree.

In the end, I stand by my beliefs because so many, very distinguished artists are doing it (and even more than we know) and no-one in the industry considers it wrong. Only fans in forums have a knee-jerk reaction about the process because it looks like cheating or like it is an easy way of making art. I can assure you it is neither.
Don't you think that if it was wrong as you claim, this method would be frowned upon and legally persecuted especially in this litigation-happy atmosphere that the industry is in?

And that is pretty much all I had to say on the matter...

[khuxford]

OK, so after all that, how is it that this artist and/or publisher aren't being chased by the same pitchfork mob as Rob G? Cuz I'm still a-wunderin' . . .

With Rob, there's an overwhelming pattern and trail of evidence. Here? Only sure of one questionable work.

[AudioPhantom]

On a side note, what happened to Ruby?

You just don't see her around much anymore.

[MWEDMER]

There is nothing wrong here. Its photo referance from a fhoto that pops up on search engines. Ruby does the social networking and posts tons of pictures up there. They are pretty much public domain by now because they can be so easily gotten.
As for likeness, He changed the costume and colors. Put the person in a different environment. Using photo referance is common. As for image protection for Ruby's face or imge, I doubt she has gone that route. Most celebrities don't even do that.